When the City of Little Rock got a FOIA request for an employee's personnel file and emails, which redactions on her job applications, salary memo, and performance reviews were correct?
Subject
Whether the City of Little Rock's planned release and redactions of City employee Lela Chism's personnel file, two payroll-position job applications, and performance review records comply with the Arkansas FOIA, where Chism objects to release of references' contact information and questions whether the requester's motives matter.
Plain-English summary
Someone filed a FOIA request to the City of Little Rock asking for Lela Chism's personnel file (including her job application) and copies of all emails and attachments to or from any email account she used for "official business" in the last three years. Chism, a City employee and the records' subject, asked the AG whether the City custodian's planned release was consistent with FOIA. She specifically objected to release of her references' contact information (names, phone numbers, addresses, emails) on her job applications, and she questioned whether the request was "of public interest" because of what the requester might do with the records.
The AG addressed each of these issues:
Requester's motive is irrelevant. This is a long-standing FOIA principle. The custodian doesn't get to ask why the requester wants the records, and the requester's stated or suspected purpose doesn't change what is releasable. Whether the requester is a journalist, a competitor, an estranged family member, or someone with a grudge, the analysis is the same: would these records be releasable to anyone under FOIA? The AG cited a string of prior opinions (2023-051, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118) confirming this rule.
Personnel records (administrative materials). Most of what the City planned to release was correctly classified as personnel records: dates of hire, job titles, employment contracts, salary information, training and certifications, education background, and routine payroll documentation. The standard analysis applies (Young v. Rice balancing, with the scale tipped toward disclosure). The AG validated the City's release decision overall.
Specific redaction problems on the salary memo. The May 10, 2021 Memorandum from the Chief Financial Officer to the Mayor, "Request for Salary Adjustments," had inconsistent redactions. Other employees' names, job positions, salary information, and equity scores were redacted, but Chism's were not. The AG flagged that names, job positions, salary information, and equity scores are not exempt under FOIA and should not be redacted, regardless of which employee they belong to. To the extent the "employee" column contains employee identification numbers, those should be redacted (per § 25-19-105(b)(11) and prior AG opinions). The "Immediate Supervisor Code" on Status Change Forms, if it's an employee identification number, should also be redacted.
Job applications and references. Chism's job application materials (the NEOGOV "Application Detail" résumé forms and two duplicate copies of employment applications for "Assistant Payroll Manager") are personnel records and should be disclosed. Crucially: the names of references on a résumé or job application are subject to disclosure and cannot be redacted. The AG cited a chain of opinions (2016-129, 2005-131, 2001-368, 2001-080) on this point. References are job-application content; they don't get the same privacy treatment as the applicant's home address.
The contact information for references depends on whether the reference is a public-sector or private-sector employee:
- A reference who is a non-elected city public employee gets the personal-contact-information protection in § 25-19-105(b)(13) for personal contact information that is "contained in employer records." Their work contact information is fair game; their personal phone and personal email are not.
- A reference who works in the private sector does not get FOIA protection for their addresses and telephone numbers. Those are not exempt from disclosure.
The Chism résumé forms had inconsistent "Person ID" redactions: one form redacted it, two did not. The custodian needs to ensure consistent redaction of identification numbers across all forms. The AG could not verify whether the underlying redactions were proper because the City did not provide unredacted copies.
Performance review documents must be withheld. The performance evaluation forms and the "Employee/Individual Contributor Performance Development" form qualify as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. These cannot be released unless all four elements of § 25-19-105(c)(1) are met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to the discipline decision, and compelling public interest. The first two elements are not met (Chism was not suspended or terminated), so these documents must be withheld. The City's plan to release them was inconsistent with FOIA.
What this means for you
Public records custodians
Three concrete rules from this opinion:
- Be consistent. When you redact a category of information for one person, redact the same category for everyone in the document. Otherwise the document looks like it was redacted to favor one party, which is itself a separate FOIA defect. The Little Rock custodian redacted other employees' names but not Chism's; the AG flagged this as inconsistent treatment.
- Names and salary are public. Resist the urge to redact names of public employees and their salary information, even when they appear incidentally in someone else's file. These are core public-record fields under Arkansas FOIA.
- Don't release performance reviews unless all four elements are met. This is the most-violated rule in personnel-file FOIA work. If the employee was not suspended or terminated, performance evaluations must be withheld, period. The "compelling public interest" is irrelevant if the suspension-or-termination element is not met.
Municipal HR staff
When you produce a personnel file in response to a FOIA request, separate it into two stacks. Personnel records (job applications, salary forms, training certifications, contact forms) are presumptively releasable with discrete redactions. Performance evaluations and job-performance documents are presumptively withheld unless the four-element test is met. Don't intermix the two stacks; the analysis is different for each.
The AG's note about reference contact information is also worth flagging in your processing checklist. Reference names: never redact. Reference work contact: rarely redact. Reference personal contact: redact only if the reference is a public employee with the FOIA's personal-contact protection.
Public employees who are subject to a FOIA request
Your right to ask the AG for review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is real, but use it with realistic expectations. The AG will not suppress disclosure based on your subjective discomfort. The AG will look at the records objectively and decide what FOIA requires. If your concern is about a specific category of information (medical, family, financial), focus your request on that category; the AG can validate or correct the custodian's redaction decisions.
If you are concerned about who is requesting your records or what they will do with them, FOIA gives you no protection on that front. The AG explicitly says the requester's motive is irrelevant.
City attorneys
The opinion is a useful checklist for advising on a personnel-file production. Performance reviews are the highest-risk category: misclassifying an evaluation record as a personnel record (or vice versa) creates the most exposure. The Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66 definition is the controlling test (created by or at the behest of the employer; to evaluate the employee; detailing performance or lack of performance on the job).
FOIA requesters
The "requester motive irrelevance" rule cuts both ways. You don't have to explain why you want public records, and the custodian can't ask. You also can't use a sympathetic motive to use the production of records that aren't otherwise releasable.
The opinion confirms that you can ask the AG to review specific redactions if you suspect the custodian over-redacted. If salary, job titles, employee names, or reference names are redacted in your production, those are textbook over-redaction issues.
Journalists
The opinion is friendly to public-employee accountability reporting. Salary, job titles, equity scores, and reference identities are all releasable. Performance reviews are not (unless the employee was suspended or terminated and the four-element test is met). When a custodian over-redacts a personnel file, you have an AG-review pathway under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B).
Common questions
Q: Is my reference's home phone number going to be released to anyone who asks?
Probably not, if the reference is a public employee. Public-employee personal contact information has FOIA protection under § 25-19-105(b)(13). If the reference is a private-sector contact, their phone and address are not protected from disclosure under FOIA. The AG cited multiple prior opinions on this distinction.
Q: Does it matter that I'm worried about why the requester is asking?
No. The AG and the courts have been consistent for decades: requester motive is irrelevant. The custodian cannot withhold based on suspicion of motive, and the AG will not factor your concern into the analysis. If you have a separate cause of action (harassment, defamation, identity theft), pursue that separately; it's not a FOIA defense.
Q: Why are performance reviews different from job applications?
Job applications are records about the employee that were not created by the employer to evaluate the employee. They are personnel records and use the Young v. Rice balancing test. Performance reviews are records created by the employer to evaluate the employee. They are evaluation records and use the four-element § 25-19-105(c)(1) test. The release standard for evaluation records is much stricter; most employees' reviews are never releasable because the suspension-or-termination element is rarely met.
Q: The custodian redacted names of other employees in the salary memo but didn't redact mine. Is that wrong?
Yes. Names of public employees are not exempt under FOIA. The custodian needs to release all names consistently. If your concern is that you are being singled out for non-redaction, the fix is to release everyone's names, not to redact yours.
Q: My equity score was disclosed in the salary memo. Is that a violation?
No. Equity scores are personnel-record information about salary-adjustment analysis. The AG specifically said equity scores are not exempt and should not be redacted.
Q: The City said it might release my emails for the last three years. Can it?
This opinion does not address the email portion of the request directly. Government emails on official business are presumptively public records under FOIA, but they may contain exempt content (attorney-client privileged communications, deliberative process, personal contact information). Each email gets a category-by-category analysis. The custodian should review them individually before release.
Q: What's the difference between an "employee identification number" and a normal employee ID like a name?
Employee personnel numbers or identification codes are computer-system access keys (per § 25-19-105(b)(11), records containing "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions are exempt). The AG opinion specifically calls out the "employee" column with numeric IDs and the "Immediate Supervisor Code" as candidates for redaction if they are computer-access identifiers. Names are not access keys; they are public-record fields.
Background and statutory framework
Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), an employee who is the subject of personnel or evaluation records can ask the AG whether the custodian's planned release is consistent with FOIA. The City's planned production becomes the subject of the AG's review.
The two release standards in personnel-file FOIA work:
Personnel records (§ 25-19-105(b)(12)): A personnel record is open to public inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) two-step balancing test applies: (1) does the information give rise to greater than minimal privacy interest? If not, disclosure is required. (2) If so, does the privacy interest outweigh the public interest in disclosure?
Employee evaluation/job performance records (§ 25-19-105(c)(1)): All four of the following must be met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to the discipline decision, and compelling public interest. The Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66 / Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466 definition controls what counts as an evaluation record: created by or at the behest of the employer; to evaluate the employee; detailing performance or lack of performance on the job.
The "compelling public interest" element is fact-specific. The Watkins treatise (The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 6th ed. 2017) identifies factors: nature of the infraction, existence of public controversy related to the agency, employee's position. A general interest in public-employee accountability does not satisfy the test; a specific link between a public controversy and the employee's serious breach of public trust does.
The disclosure-with-redaction rule comes from § 25-19-105(f): even when a record is releasable as a whole, discrete pieces of information may need to be redacted. The Watkins treatise enumerates the standard categories of redaction: personal contact information, employee personnel numbers, marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance coverage, tax withholdings, payroll deductions, net pay, banking information.
The references-on-applications rule (names always disclosable, contact information depending on public/private status) is a stable AG line going back at least to Op. 2001-080.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public record)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information of public employees)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records four-element test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B), (B)(i) (AG review process)
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Davis v. Van Buren School District, 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
- John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (6th ed. 2017)
- Prior AG opinions cited: Ops. 2023-051, 2022-032, 2018-145, 2018-093, 2018-064, 2018-015, 2016-129, 2016-124, 2016-104, 2016-103, 2016-043, 2015-053, 2015-034, 2015-016, 2015-008, 2014-127, 2014-094, 2013-066, 2012-146, 2011-095, 2011-045, 2010-070, 2009-156, 2009-096, 2009-067, 2009-032, 2008-129, 2008-082, 2007-070, 2007-064, 2007-025, 2006-176, 2006-165, 2006-118, 2006-035, 2005-194, 2005-131, 2005-086, 2005-004, 2004-167, 2003-385, 2003-153, 2003-073, 2003-015, 2002-252, 2002-159, 2002-043, 2001-368, 2001-080, 98-126, 98-101, 97-368, 97-063, 97-042, 96-256, 96-257, 96-142, 95-256, 95-242, 95-110, 95-012, 95-351, 94-235, 94-198, 93-337, 93-055, 91-351, 91-093, 87-422
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-023
April 7, 2025
Ms. Lela Chism
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Chism:
After someone requested a copy of your personnel file from the City of Little Rock,
“including [your] application for employment,” and copies of any emails and attachments
to or from any email account you have used for “official business” within the last three
years, you requested an opinion from this Office about whether the custodian’s decisions
are consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request is
made as the subject of personnel and evaluation records under A.C.A. § 25-19-
105(c)(3)(B)(i).
I have been provided for review redacted copies of certain employee records,1 all of which
the City of Little Rock’s custodian of records intends to disclose.2
You object both to the release of your references’ contact information (names, phone
numbers, addresses, and emails) contained in your job applications and to whether the
FOIA request “is of public interest” because of the requester’s intent.3
1 I have not been provided with unredacted copies of the records.
2 I have been provided three PDF files with the following file names: (1) a set labeled “Assistant Payroll
Manager Job App_Redacted”; (2) “Payroll Specialist Job App_Redacted”; and (3) “Personnel
File_Redacted.”
3 The objection concerning why the requestor is making a FOIA request or what the requestor intends to do
with the requested documents is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold the records from
disclosure. This Office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester’s intent and motives are
generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must be disclosed. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops.
2023-051, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118.
TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 2
RESPONSE
It is the statutory duty of this Office under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) to state whether a
custodian’s decision to release “personnel or evaluation records” is consistent with the
FOIA. The City of Little Rock’s custodian of records has determined that the records
should be released with certain redactions. For reasons discussed in this opinion, the
custodian’s decision to release these documents is partially consistent with the FOIA. Some
additional information from personnel records is exempt from disclosure, and the employee
performance review records should be withheld. I also note that I cannot determine whether
the custodian’s decision to redact certain information is consistent with the FOIA because
I was not provided with unredacted copies of the documents. As to your specific objections,
references’ contact information should be disclosed under the FOIA and the requester’s
intent and motives are generally irrelevant when determining whether public records must
be disclosed.
DISCUSSION
1. General rules. A document must be released in response to a FOIA request if all three
of the following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity
subject to the FOIA.4 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.5
Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.6
The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the City of Little
Rock, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.7 And the records at issue appear to be
public records.8 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be
public records,9 although that presumption is rebuttable.10 I have no information, however,
4 Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (including “a public official or employee” or “a governmental agency”).
8 The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based
information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and that
constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public
official or employee.” A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A).
9 Id.
10 See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007)
(“[T]he presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the records do not
otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the
performance or lack of performance of official functions.”’ (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)). Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 3
to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, and I will thus turn to whether any
exemptions prevent the documents’ release.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files11 normally contain two distinct
groups of records: “personnel records” and “employee-evaluation or job-performance
records.” The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs
significantly. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release under the FOIA,
the custodian must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a “personnel
record” or an “employee-evaluation or job-performance record” and then apply the
appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be released under
the FOIA.
2.Personnel records. This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel
records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone’s
employment;12 dates of hire;13 general education background, including schools attended
and degrees received;14 training and certifications;15 job titles;16 employment contracts;17
and employee names,18 salaries,19 payroll records,20 and salary information such as non-
performance-based raises.21 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release such
administrative records as “personnel records” is consistent with the FOIA.
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may
contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information
11 “Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents:
employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about
reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance
evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates
of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g. Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops.
2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017)..
12 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 97-063, 97-063.
13 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
14 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
15 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
16 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 95-012, 91-351.
17 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-337.
18 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
19 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
20 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.
21 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-093, 2015-016, 2013-066, 2011-045, 2007-070. Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 4
of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home
addresses),22 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;23 marital status of
public employees;24 dates of birth of public employees;25 social security numbers;26
driver’s license numbers;27 insurance coverage;28 tax information or withholdings;29
payroll deductions;30 net pay;31 banking information;32 and other financial “records that
would divulge intimate financial detail.”33
The May 10, 2021 Memorandum from the Chief Financial Officer to the Mayor concerning
“Request for Salary Adjustments” has redacted information for other employees that has
not also been redacted for your information. Names, job positions, salary information, and
equity scores are not exempt under the FOIA, so that information should not be redacted,
even if such information pertains to employees who are not you. Additionally, to the extent
that the numbers under the “employee” column are employee numbers or identification
codes, such numbers should be redacted.
If the “Immediate Supervisor Code” on the Status Change Forms is an employee personnel
number or identification code, it should be redacted.
The custodian should review these records to ensure consistency in redactions. Because I
have only been provided copies of redacted documents, I cannot conclude whether
redactions were properly made.
22 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
23 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt
from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records
containing ‘personal identification numbers’ used for computer security functions are specifically exempt
from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11).
24 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
25 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
26 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
27 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
28 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
30 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
31 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
32 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
33 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422. Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 5
3. Employee application records. This Office has consistently opined that the successful
job applicant’s name, identifying characteristics, interview scores, résumés, and
applications qualify as “personnel records” under the FOIA.34 The “NEOGOV –
Application Detail” résumé forms and two duplicate copies of employment applications
for the position of “Assistant Payroll Manager” are best classified as personnel records and
should be disclosed.35 Thus, the custodian’s decision to disclose the application records is
consistent with the FOIA. But the custodian should review these documents to ensure
exempted information is properly redacted.36
The names of job references listed on either a résumé or job application are subject to
disclosure under the FOIA and cannot be redacted.37 If a job reference is a nonelected city
public employee, and their personal contact information is “contained in employer
records,”38 then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job
reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information—such
as addresses and telephone numbers—are not exempt from disclosure.39
The “NEOGOV – Application Detail” résumé forms contain inconsistent redactions: one
form redacts the “Person ID” while two of the forms do not. The custodian will need to
review these documents to ensure that the proper redactions are made consistently. Because
I have only been provided copies of redacted documents, I cannot conclude whether
redactions were properly made.
4. Employee performance review documents. An employee-evaluation record is a record
created by or at the behest of an employer; to evaluate the employee; and that details the
employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job.40 The employee performance
review documents here—the performance evaluation forms and the “Employee/Individual
Contributor Performance Development” form—meet those requirements and must be
withheld unless all the following elements have been met:
34 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-127, 2012-146, 2009-156, 2009-096, 2009-032, 2005-086, 2005-004, 2003-
015, 98-101, 97-042, 96-142.
35 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-145, 2016-043, 2009-032.
36 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-032.
37 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2005-131, 2001-368, 2001-080.
38 See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
39 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131.
40 Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019
Ark. App. 466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition
of employee-evaluation records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-
057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, and 93-055. Ms. Lela Chism
Opinion No. 2025-023
Page 6
• Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;
• Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final
and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;
• Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend
or terminate the employee; and
• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of
the records in question.41
Because the first two elements are not met, these documents should be withheld.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby
approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
41 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).